linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080229003155.bbab795d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:31:55 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
	Max Krasnyanskiy <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:50:11 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> 
> > My vision on the direction we should take wrt cpu isolation.
> > 
> > Next on the list would be figuring out a nice solution to the 
> > workqueue flush issue.
> 
> nice work Peter, i find this "system sets" extension to cpusets a much 
> more elegant (and much more future-proof) solution than the proposed 
> spreadout of the limited hack of isolcpus/cpu_isolated_map. It 
> concentrates us on a single API and on a single mechanism to handle 
> isolation matters. (be that for clustering/supercomputing or real-time 
> purposes)
> 
> Thanks for insisting on using cpusets for this!
> 
> i've queued up your patches in sched-devel.git, and lets make sure this 
> has no side-effects on existing functionality. (it shouldnt)
> 

It of course lays waste to a series of cgroup patches from Paul Menage
which I already had queued.

So I shall drop git-sched again.

How often do I have to say this?  git-sched is not
git-everything-which-looks-shiny!  It is for the CPU scheduler.

If you had put this patchset into a private branch for private testing, or
even into a separate git-petes-stuff then I wouldn't have to collaterally
drop the entirety of git-sched because of this.

Sigh.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/